tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News December 1, 2012 8:00pm-9:00pm PST
>> this week on the journal editorial report, with the clock ticking, both sides dig in on fiscal negotiations and the president iic mum on spending cuts, how should republicans respond? and ahead of january's big tax hikes, companies and investors are cashing out. including one of president obama's biggest supporters. plus, as susan rice makes the rounds on capitol hill, we'll look at who could make up the national security team in president obama's second term.
♪ >> i am ready and able and willing and excited to go ahead and get this issue resolved in a bipartisan fashion so that american families, american businesses, have some certainty going into next year. >> i'm disappointed in where we are and i'm disappointed in what's happened over the last couple of weeks. the fiscal cliff is a serious business and i'm here seriously trying to resolve it and i would hope the white house would get serious as well. >> welcome tt colonel, editorial report, i'm paul gigot, not a meeting of the minds between president obama and house speaker john boehner where talks to end the fiscal showdown ends. the president for his park took his place for the public and called for america and
little cuts to entitlement spending something the speaker says must be part of any final deal. wall street journal columnist and dan henninger, and mary an anna-- anastasia o'grady and kim strassel. you've been talking it it sources and is the mood as hour as it sounds. >> it is by the end of this week and here is why, the republicans came out right after the election and said to the president, you want revenue here. you want revenue on the wealthy, we'll give it to you, limiting tax deductions for the wealthy. the president instead of taking that and running with tceiling a deal has been campaigning for tax hikes and to cap it off sent treasury secretary tim geithner to congress with this outrageous proposal as basically a compilation of everything that the president wanted in his
budget and beyond what he even campaigned for. as a result i think most republicans wonder how serious he is about doing this. they feel things are going backward. >> paul: yeah, that, that's the way it sounds to me, too, i talked to some senior republicans this week and they're increasingly of the belief that maybe the president wants to back them into a corner, that could push them over the cliff and then be able to blame them if you have a recession or for taxes going up on everybody. >> well, i don't doubt that's what he's trying to do. it's hard to see where the upside is for the president if the economy slips into recession, talking about 2013 having no growth would be horrible. >> yeah, so, it's a little hard to see what the game is. as kim was mentioning, the president wants these tax increases. it seems to me we're going to go through this sort of scorpion dance the rest of the year. what did the president campaign on? what was the one thing, i think most people would say he campaigned on, that's raising tax rates on the wealthiest,
the two top rates, that's the thing i think is on the table and-- >>, but the republicans put that on the table. >> and the republicans put that on the table the a through deductions and-- >> yeah. but they're willing to put that on the table. the question is, what does the president then give republicans in return, if anything? >> well, i think that's what the republicans position should be. say we have committed what you campaigned on. if you're not willing to talk about reducing spending, they are we're not going to be able to do a deal with you. and i think that puts an own nas, to some extent. back on the white house. >> mary, republicans have been fighting over the new no taxes pledge and grover norquist has republicans on record i won't vote for a tax increase. are they really ending up here negotiating with themselves in a way that hurts their positions, vis-a-vis the president? >> certainly, they are, i think that the president is energized by the fact he
thinks, look, i ran a lousy economy for four years, i left unemployment high, i increased the size of the debt and the deficit, i got everything i wanted, the place is a mess and look, i got reelected. so, what's so hard about me continuing to doing that and blaming it on them. obviously, i'm very good at that and that's base clr where he's going here and the republicans i think are not very good poker players, they're signaled they're relucks tennant to go over the cliff. if you're in this showdown, i is a, come on, bring it. >> paul: they will get blamed if that happens and the president is signaling that. that wouldn't be a pleasant outcome for them. you're saying they should suggest to the president we had he' be willing to do that and maybe he'll give at the end? >> yeah, i think they have to show that they are it, that he's in a negotiation and that he has to give and that they're willing to give and if they just say, look, we're so
afraid of getting blamed for that, of course, he's going to roll over them. >> kim, where do you think the republicans are? where should they go here? do they have real options, any other options other than maybe just giving the president in the end, what he wants? >> you know, talking to republicans, there's a very firm feeling out there, a strong feeling that john boehner should be be given more time to negotiate and see what he can get. because, look, there is an honest belief in the republican party that there is a big problem here and if there's an opportunity to do something about the real driver suspending particular entitlements, they ought to take that opportunity. i think you see people turning around to decide what would be a plan b and one thing that came out, a suggest by tom cole, a republican from oklahoma saying, maybe we should just agree to the middle class tax extensions and sign them. give them to the president and get them off the plate and let him take the political fallout
for everything else that, you know, comes, the economic top rates, sequester and everything else. >> and i'd have to end up doing something on the spending cuts that are coming and on the debt limit, dan, briefly? >> well, yeah, but i think basically we're back to where we were in the 2011 negotiations. the republicans committing us to tax cuts and tax increases, and the democrats promising to do something on spending later in 2013. it's very hard to see that that's going to get resolved by the end of the year. >> all right, what a mess. when we come back, the pr inspect of the tax cliff is already affecting the behavior of some companies and shareholders, including one of president obama's biggest backers, who is cashi
like say, gas station sushi. cheap is good. and sushi, good. but cheap sushi, not so good. it's like that super-low rate on not enough car insurance. pretty sketchy. ♪ and then there are the good decisions. like esurance. their coverage counselor tool helps you choose the right coverage for you at a great price. [ stomach growls ] without feeling queasy. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call. >> the president who has covered the backs of businesses. a president who understands what the private sector needs
to succeed. a president who takes the long view and makes the tough decisions. and that's why i'm here tonight supporting president obama. >> paul: that was costco co-founder and former ceo at the democratic national convention in september, saying that president obama will be better for business than mitt romney, but just before that second obama term begins, he's getting a dividend. mr. senegal and the rest of the costco board voted this week to give themselves a special dividend, a 3 billion dollar christmas gift for shareholders that will allow them to be taxed at the current rate of 15% rather than next year's rate of over 40%. and costco is just one of many companies making these one-time cash payouts in a move that will save stocks holders like senegal unless in dividend taxes. and so, mary, turns out maybe taxes do influence investor behavior. what's the meaning of the
great cashout of 2012? >> well, don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree. >> paul: russell long, former late senator. >> exactly. and what you see here are very wealthy people who can, you know, engineer ways to avoid taxes, meanwhile, what he's-- the medicine he's suggesting for people who are starting to do better, people who say, make $200,000, maybe working their whole life. they're the ones who are going to get hit with the obama taxes and really, i mean, you look at that and you think a normal human being with, you know, would be ashamed of that lack of intellectual honesty, should be. >> it's fascinating economic dri that costco is borrowing the money to pay this dividend. now, usually when companies pay dividends, it's out of earnings, right? >> yes, retained earnings, in this case, they're borrowing, taking on more debt, not to invest in the business in the future growth, but for a one-time equity pay out.
>> and to worry about interest rates are low thanks to ben bernanke. >>, but this shows the tax rates combined with very low bore heing costs and instead of investing in growth, you're investing in tax avoidance. >> and russell long said, i've come to the conclusion if you're going to have capitalism, you're going to need capital. >> goes to the heart of this, right? >> pure genius, except what's happening here is that capital could be invested in productive businesses or used next year is being pulled out of 2013, into 2012 so it can be realized as a profit and that capital will probably then be put in cash accounts or regional investors because these people don't trust going into 2013. they're just taking economic activity out of that era. >> so what's the economic impact going forward next
year? >> why, it's dire for 2013. they really do, they're sucking the air out of 2013 and back to the point we were talking about, the negotiations in washingtons. the at some point, somebody, maybe the republicans have to speak up ab defend the real economy against the sort of policies they're talking about down there. >> they get wrapped up in the insider baseball and we're guilty of that, too, and playing to that and people out there. what they really want to know is the economy going to grow or not. if you're increasing taxes on dividend, you get less capital and dividends and then less growth for the economy and less revenue for the government. >> well, a lot of people worry about the many years that japan has been in a slow growth environment, but they've kept interest rates very low in japan, but the problem is, government is too big. that's why japan has not been able to start growing again. and this is the path that the u.s. is certainly on if we don't change that dynamic. >> paul: kim, is there any recognition about this in
washington or is it all -- i mean, do you hear any of this discussion or do they really believe, certainly, the white house and the treasury, that tax rates like this don't matter, at that ultimately-- >> no, they do to a degree. if you talk to the officials iran up, come on, so we're going to raise the rates, what is fascinating to put it in the bigger context of the debate about tax revenue, the economists have the static view, you've got x-amounts of capital gains income and you get 20% more tax revenue. >> you don't, because people decide to shelter it. they do their transactions the year before, when the amount is less. and so, all of these numbers that the white house is counting on and sort of rubbing its hands together hoping to get. they're not going to get anywhere near that because wealthy, as mary said. are very good at making sure the tax man can't get their hands on it.
>> here is the thing i don't get about the president's calculation politically. if you look at the reagan's presidency and clinton's, the one reason they had successful terms, they had growth. clinton 4% growth. more than 4% and reagan chose to that. that buoyed public sentiment that helped their approval ratings throughout enormous revenues that they could use. if obama gets a recession in the second term after the slow growth of the first term, he's dead in the water. he can't afford that. >> yes, but ball there's a whole economic school, we call it keynesian, which says that when the economy is slow and not growing, government has to step in and play the role of the engine of growth, by spending money. this is something that the democrats believe in religiously, and they think that the only way to get the economy growing again is to spend a lot of money from the government. that's where the problem comes in. >> all right. when we come back. as he prepares for a second term. president obama faces the
prospect of assembling a whole new national security team. a closer look who could fill the top post and a preview of the controversies to come next. ♪ [ male announcer ] the way it moves. the way it cleans. everything about the oral-b power brush is simply revolutionary. oral-b power brushes oscillate, rotate and even pulsate to gently loosen and break up that sticky plaque with more brush movements than manual brushes and even up to 50% more than leading sonic technology brushes for a superior clean. oral-b power brushes. go to oralb.com for the latest offers.
. . >> jamie: susan rice has done a great job as our be ambassador to the united nations. and of course, this decision about my successor is up to the president. >> paul: and the secretary of state hillary clinton reacting to talk to president obama may nominate u.n. ambassador susan rice to replace her. rice made the rounds on capitol hill on tuesday in an attempt to ease republican concerns and smooth the way for potential cabinet nomination, just one of the positions that president obama will have to fill on his
national security team in his second term. we're back with dan henninger and mary anastasia o'grady and bret stevens joins the panel. is there a case for susan rice as secretary of state. >> senator john mccain and susan ayotte feel they have a case again her in relates to benghazi before the election because susan rice after the incident happened, that the murder of ambassador stevens went on the sunday morning talk shows and said that the demonstrations were related to the islamic video that some kid in california made. and what they want to know is why susan rice, u.n. ambassador, was sent out there and why she was sticking with the story that was crumbling almost as she was saying it. >> paul: the intelligence talking points and not trying to be dishonest. >> two points, they want to know whether the administration was politicizing or trying to protect the president from an
ugly event in libya just before the election, and second, the more serious policy issue is what exactly was the administration, the white house and the state department, doing during that period when this big fire fight was taking place in benghazi? and i think the white house has been trying to sweep this issue away in the wake of the election and i think these senators are entitled to keep pressing toind out what happened then. >> paul: so, susan rice's nomination becomes an opportunity in dan's telling to try to get at that story, that libya story. >> it's actually an opportunity to get at what the nature of the obama administration foreign policy is, paul. and susan rice in some ways encapsulates a strain in democratic policy thinking that goes way back, a story that's actually told by samantha power, a close aide to president obama and wrote about genocide in with a randa. and susan rice is state department that makes a cameo appearance in the book, quoted asking, if we call what
happened in rwanda genocide, how does it play for us in what were then the mid term elections of 1994. well, there's a pattern here as we see. one is a reluctance to have america be engaged in certain issues, and the second one is politicizing foreign policy issues because they might hurt the president's political stance. >> paul: and you want a secretary of state, if you're-- well, the american people want a secretary of state who is some more independent judgment and not thinking so much about the politics, is that the point? >> that would be one thing that you would look for in the secretary of state. >> paul: sorry for stating the obvious. >> the national interests and not the president's mid term when it comes to iran and north koreas of the world. >> paul: is that enough to stop, mary the president from getting the secretary of state that he wants and with john kerry mentioned the senator from massachusetts as the alternative to susan rice, would he be any better. >> i'm surprised that the
president is pushing so hard from here. quite apart from whether she was politicizing events she shouldn't have been, she has a reputation of not being a very good diplomate n that job you have to be able to persuade people to come on your side and apparently she tends to. >> rough edges. >> insult people and she's a little bit abrasive, but, john kerry is also very troubling. his track record over the years, not as a diplomate. he might be very good at going to dinners and so forth, but, you know, for example, in latin america, when he ran for president, he was backed by thomas boardhey a former in nicaragua and, another's involvement in the office in honduras were bringing a friend of chavez back to honduras and that's cost a lot of-- >> and the case for susan rice, she's better than john
kerry. (laughter) >> do you think that the president is going to nominate susan rice and do you think if he does that she'll get through? >> i expect yes on both counts, but i have a suggestion for the president, he should nominate colin powell, former secretary of state and supporter to be either secretary of state or secretary of defense, he could fill both jobs. >> all right. we have to take on tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about low-cost investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we're committed to offering you tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 low-cost investment options-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like our exchange traded funds, or etfs tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 which now have the lowest tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lower than spdr tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and even lower than vanguard. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that means with schwab, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 your portfolio has tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a better chance to grow. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and you can trade all our etfs online, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free, from your schwab account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so let's talk about saving money, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab etfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 schwab etfs now have the lowest operating expenses
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-800-4schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 or visit schwab.com tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to open an account today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 funding is easy tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab mobile deposit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors should consider tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully information d#: 1-800-345-2550 contained in the prospectus, d#: 1-800-345-2550 cluding investment objectives, d#: 1-800-345-2550 risks, charges, and expenses. d#: 1-800-345-2550 you can obtain tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a prospectus by visiting d#: 1-800-345-2550 w.schwab.com/schwabetfs. please read the prospectus tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully before investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 [ male announcer ] it started long ago. the joy of giving something everything you've got. it takes passion. and it's not letting up anytime soon. at unitedhealthcare insurance company, we understand that commitment. and always have. so does aarp, an organization serving the needs of americans 50 and over for generations. so it's no surprise millions have chosen an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans,
they help cover some of the expenses medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to find out more, request your free decision guide. call or go online today. after all, when you're going the distance, it's nice to have the experience and commitment to go along with you. keep dreaming. keep doing. go long.
>> time now for hits and misses of the week. first a, hit to you. >> a hit to the u.s. supreme court for throwing open the door to another constitutional challenge to obamacare. the high court agreed to a request from liberty university to reopen its lawsuit against a main provisions of the health care law, arguing they're unconstitutional on the religious grounds and this of course goes to the point about the law requiring employers to
provide contraception and no idea how far it will go, but the court deserves credit for parts of the hearing. >> thanks. >> bret? >> this is a miss to china's people's daily largest newspaper i think in the world which picked up an item in the american media called kim jong un, the media, and came from the satire cal newspaper "the onion" sometimes things were lost in translation and this was irony. >> that's funny. >> the largest black hole ever seen in the galaxy, the size of 77 million suns, it's 250 million light years away from the earth and it's incomprehensible. what i like most about it though, it's rather humbling. >> paul: i thought you were describing washington. >> that's not humbling, fright any. >> paul: but it is
incomprehensible. >> 250 million light years away from anybody's experience. >> paul: okay, remember, if you have your own hit or miss, please send it to us at firstname.lastname@example.org and be sure to follow us on twitter at jer, on fnc. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and all of you for watching, i'm paul gigot, hope to see you here ne >> . >> jamie: on fox news watch. ambassador susan race made the rounds on capitol hill to try to spin her way out of trouble with her g.o.p. critics, it didn't go the way she hoped. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> but the liberal media defending rice and denigrating her detractors. >> and the establishment folks, wrongly and repeatedly attacking a young are black woman after an election in which blacks and women went
strongly blue. >> are any in the media concerned how this looks? >> my hope is to get this done before christmas. >> jon: president obama talking stuff and standing his ground as america approaches a fiscal cliff, and the immediate y media in his corn again. >> the new york times gets caught 40 questionable items about the conflicts in the middle east. and a british judge releases his report on the phone hacking scandal in the country and how did the media here react. and jay leno sees the light. >> this is very dangerous for the white house if they should start asking real questions. >> jon: on the panel this week, writer and fox news contributor judy miller. syndicated columnist, cal thomas. jim pinkerton, contributor. and kirsten powers. >> jon: i'm jon scott, fox
news watch is on right now. ambassador susan rice asked for a face-to-face meeting with some of her most focal critics to make things better. the meeting took place and appears to have made things worse. >> rice herself asked for the meeting, but the effort to smooth things over didn't exactly work. >> for the first time she acknowledged her comments were wrong. >> susan rice has been depi depicted from everything as a thrown under the bus sacraficial lamb to a willing political accomplice. >> and ambassador susan rice meeting on capitol hill with some of her critics, how she wrongly characterized the attacks in benghazi on september 11th and as reported, the meeting did not clear things up. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> i'm more troubled today knowing, having met with the
acting director of the cia and ambassador rice. >> and more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama before an election. >> the meeting with the senators getting all kinds of media attention and might have pressed for the press to get more from the white house as jay leno noted. >> and this week, cbs news became the first news organization besides fox to ask president obama who changed the benghazi talking points? >> yeah, this is very dangerous for the white house, and suddenly start asking real questions. >> so, what about it, jim, if jay leno is asking that question, does it mean that the press might be finally catching on? >> i think a couple of things are happening here, first of all, the campaign of sort of race baiting against john mccain led by richard wolf and
tour, don't forget the accent mark. and the meeting with rice went badly and susan collins prides herself as a moderate thinks worse of you, you've done a bad job on the your presentation. and adam credo, the new website called the washington free beacon has millions of dollars in investments of companies linked to iran and rattled off the list and how she got confirmed as a u.n. ambassadorship and the romney campaign never noticing this as the issues of iran and weapons heating up and coming up in independent voices like the beacon, that maybe it will get-- it will derail her. >> jon: the media seem to be circling the wagons around here, judy. >> oh, yes, john mccain's
racist theme has been picked up steam and regurgitated not just by people on nbc, "the washington post" editorial pointed out something astonishing to me, of the 90 people who signed the letter objecting to susan rice's nomination or potential nomination as secretary of state, 80 of them were male and about half of them came from states that used to have slaves a hundred years ago, and this was-- when this kind of reasoning gets into the mainstream media, we've got problems. >> jon: you know, the accusation directed the at senator mccain in particular, who voted to approve colin powell as secretary of state and condoleezza rice as secretary of state. >> it's trshgs do you have remember that john mccain used to be the darling of the left and he's been somebody always, front and center on immigration reform, not usually something racists do, and you know, now, suddenly, we're told that this man who
as been in the public eye for as long as i've been alive, i feel like, is suddenly a racist and they have no problem saying that and this is an extremely toxic and dangerous trend that's happening and i think that people should be very concerned that this is now the argument that people make. >> we've come a long way baby, and i still remember just before the civil rights movement when racists and masog masogyists. whatever happened to content of character not color of skin, you can't criticize susan race because she's black and female, what are the rules. >> jon: and we thought we'd play it clip for you from the msnbc anchor. >> mccain tried to make her unnominatable, and would look
weak. and mccain inappropriate political attack and gave us the horrible optics of he and lindsey graham as old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a younger black women and moments when they went strongly blue. >> jon: and claims that mccain went on a witch hunt and tarring the ambassador in the press. that's quite a loaded word. >> so many words that he can say that for some reason i can't say. next time we hear the usual suspects in the review and denouncing rush limbo, remember, they were stone cold silent most likely so far on all of this race baiting going on on the rice-mccain issue. >> jon: what about the real issues what are the real issues that the media should be raising here? >> this has been an indictment not just of the politicians who make these charges and remember, this is where it
started because congressional black caucus representatives made the charge that senator mccain was racist, but, it's also an indictment of a totally incurious press. i mean, where are most reporters on important questions, issues of fact like what happened in benghazi, what happened before? why was there so little security. what did they do? what did they say they did after the fact? we still don't know. >> and where was president obama for all of us. >> probably afraid of being called racist, truly, that's what it's turned into, i think, people, the setup, if you oppose susan rice, you're a racist, not that there could be legitimate questions, not that senators don't oppose p nominees utility time. and nothing that they've said in spades about john bolton. am i allowed to say that. >> you're being anti-mustache. >> are the media cheering for
a leap off the fiscal cliff? >> republicans are committed to continuing to work with the president to come to an agreement to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. >> as both sides in washington try to hammer out agreements on taxes and fiscal spending, they get the full media treatment as the press try to pin the blame on the g.o.p. is it working? details next on news watch. [ male announcer ] take dayquil... [ ding! ]
...and spend time on the slopes. take alka-seltzer plus cold & cough... [ buzz! ] ...and spend time on the chair. for non-drowsy 6-symptom cold & flu relief. take dayquil. use nyquil d... [ ding! ] ...and get longer nighttime cough relief. use tylenol cold multisymptom nighttime... [ coughs ] [ buzz! ] [ screams ] ...and you could find yourself... honey? ...on the couch. nyquil d. 50% longer cough and stuffy nose relief. .
>> our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that's fair and balanced. and that kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it'd be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future and i believe that both parties can agree on a frame work that does that in the coming weeks. in fact, my hope is to get this done before christmas. >> so right now, all eyes are
on the white house. the country doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership. it's time for the president, congressional democrats to tell the american people what spending cuts they're willing to make and we'd like to thank the president for adopting the fox news slogan there and as we get closer to the fiscal cliff, both sides seem to be standing tough and what about the coverage, jim in. >> i think the debate overall that began with simpson bowls saying we should roughly have tax cuts, tax increases, pardon me, and spending cuts and so the media narrative is sort of, can we get simpson bowls through a recalcitrant republican congress? and what's changed though, i think it's really a role call, daniel new house and mary anne shiner, says simpson and bowls are no longer part of the discussion and it's now morphed into the tax increase
and democrats lost interest in the taxing and can we put them on compromise on simpson-bowles and i think so far, the media with exception of a few reporters haven't caught on, but we see charles krauthammer, andrea tantaros, watch out. you're being snookered. >> and pushing republicans towards tax increases and john boehner said we're up for revenue-- >> as several have pointed out the democrats won the election and that means that there are consequences and financial consequences that flow from that, and if the president wants 1 trillion 600 billion dollars worth of new revenue which the wall street journal was one of those to point out in the editorial he's entitled to get it at least what the democrats think and therefore, the republicans are on the defense. >> worth pointing out though that the republicans still won
those, the majority in the house so they won an election, too, and the president, what strikes me as odd, the president campaigned on the tax increase proposal for the highest, you know, the highest couple of percentage of american taxpayers, that would raise, as i understand it, about 850 billion dollars, but he comes out with this proposal that's twice that so he's doubled down on the tax increase that he has. >> he has the upper hand which i actually think he does have the upper hand because every poll that i've seen has most people, including republicans think we should raise taxes on the wealthy. so, in that sense, i think that it is being covered accurately, the problem is, will the president's feet be held to the fire in terms of the other part of the revenue cuts, not just revenue raised and the spending cuts, not just revenue raising which so far isn't happening and probably get away with kicking the can down the field. >> john, there's a terrific
bias in favor of government and i give you this example. when the debate about, whether to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction was being bandied about this week in washington, "the washington post" had this line, that would cost the government, the elimination of the mortgage deduction, 100 billion dollars a year. so, it's all about the government, what it costs the government. what about what it costs the taxpayers, the people who make the money to give to these bozos to waste. >> i thought we were the government. >> exactly. >> i'm trying to figure out where cal is coming from. >> yeah. but the president, you know, was out in philadelphia on friday, and he seems to be sort of, continuing the campaign almost as if he didn't win the election and the media are playing-- >> again, look, there's no question the media are trying to push the republicans toward a deal although there's a significant backlash against it. look, the president is campaigning, he's campaigning, just like he's kept going, but it worked for him and before november 6th why should he stop now? >> all right, more news watch
ahead. if you see something that you feel shows evidence of media bias, tweet us at fox news watch on twitter. next, the new york times breaks a key rule in journalism. >> covering the conflicts in the middle east, a real challenge for reporters to get the facts right. but are some reporters using bow gas reports to tell them made up stories? find out next on news watch.
119 journalists have been killed this year, a statistic noted by david carr, media reporter by the new york times. in his article titled "using war as cover to target journalists", he also wrote on tuesday, november 20th, three employees of news organizations were killed in gaza by israeli missiles. rather than suggesting it was a mistake or denying responsibility, an israeli defense forces spokeswoman, the lieutenant told people were relevance to terror activity. why is this guy getting criticized? >> he's getting criticized appropriately, jon, he has confused people idf perhaps didn't say it explicitly enough for mr. carr accused of being terrorists. now, let's be straight here, you can have a journalist who has strong opinions about how terrible what israel is doing in gaza. you can have a journalist who says, we've the got to defend
israel. what you can't have is someone who is a member of a terrorist organization working for a news organization that is branned as an arm of that terrorist organization, masquerading as a journalist and complain when the israelis target that journalist and that what happened. and two of the people whom he pointed out as being journalists actually one of them is a card carry member of islamic jihad who didn't pretend to be a journalist and the second was a member of hamas, with a sign on the top. this is use journalists as shields. >> i like his defense, i ran it by my colleagues in the shop and reminded me of larry the news and larry would say king, when there was a bias in any of you biased, no, let's settle it they be. >> jon: and carr asserts, as news media organizations become increasingly
politicized all journalists risk ending up as collateral casualties because they're working adjacent to outlets viewed of perveyors of propaganda. legitimate fear there? >> no, i don't think it is. i mean, i think these are some pretty-- look, i'm not somebody who i think is considered assume pro israel person, not anti-israel, but not one who will apologize for everything they do and i think this, this crosses the line in terms of accusations. i think it's fine to criticize some for humanitarian problems and so on, but i think this goes far and as judy said, the evidence to back it up, and i wish people can admit when they're wrong. look, he made a mistake, he should just say he's wrong. if he got information from somebody they thought it was reliable, made a mistake, it happens, he should take responsibility. >> the challenge is who a journalist, and all the time, bloggers, are they able to benefit from shield laws.
what do we do, in yemen, and everybody in al-qaeda who says many' a journalist account, and twitter account and contributing to al-jazeera or al-qaeda tv. this has to be sorted out otherwise it's going to keep happening. and we're in a situation where the combat and the journalist and the innocent civilian are probably within a few yards of each other and who gets killed? >> and also this week, lord justice brian levinson, the phone hacking scandal of the british tabloids and news of the world, a now closed paper, formerly owned by the parent company of this network, and hacked into phone for the stories they pedaled and it was much larger and other blish tap tabloids. in the report, accused the newspapers for acting recklessly and having no record for privacy and made
organization. for example, when president obama was elected president in 2008, theono the onion capturede history perfectly. they named north korean's leader kim jong un the sexiest leader alive. pretty funny, but it gets better than ad. one of china's largest papers picked up the story and ran it for real along with more than 50 pictures of the guy. the sarcasm of this description totally lost on the chinese editors. with his devastatingly hand some round face, his boyish charm and his strong, sturdy frame, this pyongyang bred heart throb is blessed every woman's dream come true. kim made this newspaper's editorial board swoon with his impe